I often get depressed reading the steaming pile of [CENSORED] the media, and certain individuals who continue to term themselves scientists (contrary to all evidence) are shoving in everyone's faces about e-cigarettes.
So here's a happy thread for a change.
Prof Peter Hajek's oration at the recent Global Nicotine Conference in Warsaw was a full-on, undiluted take-down of the arguments (sorry, I mean lies) being poured out about e-cigarettes. His approach is typified by a quote from one of his slides: Why is there a controversy about e-cigs at all?
But there's much more. He goes into the historical background of attitudes to nicotine, with interesting observations on the different attitudes of researchers in the UK versus the US. He addresses every single one of the ANTZ's lies about e-cigs, and even goes into trying to understand how and why they came about. He even comments on Glantz - well, at least for about a minute, which is what Glantz is worth...
Clive Bates has the full video here: Some hard messages for the tobacco control establishment – Peter Hajek « The counterfactual
You can see Prof Hayek's slides here: http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/plenary1/peter hajek.pdf
For a taster, my notes are below.
Load up some of your favourite juice (using a sealed, spill-proof refill mechanism, of course
) and.... Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!! 
NOTES and LOVELY QUOTES:
Mike Russell
"People smoke for nicotine but die from tar" (BMJ, 1976)
US pipedream of less nicotine, less addictive cigarettes
As opposed to Russell, who advocated same level of nicotine, but less tar
Mention of Glantz (groans, boos)
"Nicotine is actually harmful" (various reasons from Glantz)
"Just waffle" - see Farsalinos for full rebuttal
The comparator (to nicotine) is not NOTHING but SMOKING
Nicotine benefits:
- Lowers BMI
- May prevent Parkinsons
- May prevent ulcerative colitis
- May prevent some types of dementia
Alternative nicotine-delivery systems: not as "quit smoking aids", but their potential as long-term alternatives to tobacco that makes the virtual elimination of tobacco a realistic target.
Russell, BJ of Addiction, 1991
Russell was not hopeful about support from tobacco control activists:
- Most activists oppose safer nicotine delivery products
- Amazingly, there is also strong opposition from public-health bodies
Response of tobacco control activists, instead, was:
(hilarious delivery of their switching from one tack to another, as their claims are busted one by one)
Nicotine dangerous - no it isn't
Other EC ingredients dangerous - no they're not
Luring children - no they're not
Rehabilitating tobacco companies - no it isn't
Pharma is alarmed (losing markets)
"level playing field" - this soundbite is a sign of pharma influence
EC's primary purpose is to compete with CIGS, not with pharma products
Zealots want to eradicate nicotine completely. Drug use is evil, nicotine is evil.
This is madness.
Activists feel EC threaten their achievements
They feel their main purpose is to fight tobacco industry, not prevent death and disease
Or they may be aware of EC's promise, but want to sacrifice it for the sake of denying tobacco industry a "seat at the table"
Quote: BMJ articles last year
First Etter argued that ECs should be at least as easily available as cigarettes
Then Chapman argued that no, cigarettes should be more available.
Chapman:
"The needs of smokers must not become the tail that wags the dog of tobacco control policy" (laughs)
It's a moral agenda.
Public health issues often driven by this. Abortion, assisted dyying, sexual behaviour.
Moral beliefs are emotional and unshakeable; evidence is not needed to discover the truth as the truth is "self-evident".
You can cheat because the end justifies the means, because you're saving souls.
They do need evidence: only to create converts
Evidence may emerge of health risks, youth uptake in the future.
BUT the problems presented so far to justify regulatory restrictions were just made up - we have no evidence of these problems so far.
Safer products tend to replace the unsafe products rather than popularising them.
Are you saying that if we allow ECs on the market, it'll somehow increase the the use of conventional cigarettes? That's the only thing that matters.
All the other soundbites are irrelevant:
Re-normalising smoking: what does that mean? If it doesn't mean cigarette us goes up, then it's not renormalising smoking.
Undermining tobacco control: has no meaning unless cigarette use goes up
Rehabilitating tobacco industry: only of concern if cigarette use goes up.
No.1 question for research is: what does increased use of ECs do to cigarette consumption?
Risks and benefits of liberal vs restrictive regulation (ref Clive Bates' more thorough coverage of this that morning):
Over-regulation: ban, medicinal regulation, stricter regs than cigarettes: you will pre-empt any potential benefits and retain the market monopoloy of
cigarettes.
We are still trying to change the EC regulation. Which way will it go?
(slide: football team celebrating a goal, or disappointed baby face)
So here's a happy thread for a change.
Prof Peter Hajek's oration at the recent Global Nicotine Conference in Warsaw was a full-on, undiluted take-down of the arguments (sorry, I mean lies) being poured out about e-cigarettes. His approach is typified by a quote from one of his slides: Why is there a controversy about e-cigs at all?
But there's much more. He goes into the historical background of attitudes to nicotine, with interesting observations on the different attitudes of researchers in the UK versus the US. He addresses every single one of the ANTZ's lies about e-cigs, and even goes into trying to understand how and why they came about. He even comments on Glantz - well, at least for about a minute, which is what Glantz is worth...
Clive Bates has the full video here: Some hard messages for the tobacco control establishment – Peter Hajek « The counterfactual
You can see Prof Hayek's slides here: http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/plenary1/peter hajek.pdf
For a taster, my notes are below.
Load up some of your favourite juice (using a sealed, spill-proof refill mechanism, of course
) and.... Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!! NOTES and LOVELY QUOTES:
Mike Russell
"People smoke for nicotine but die from tar" (BMJ, 1976)
US pipedream of less nicotine, less addictive cigarettes
As opposed to Russell, who advocated same level of nicotine, but less tar
Mention of Glantz (groans, boos)
"Nicotine is actually harmful" (various reasons from Glantz)
"Just waffle" - see Farsalinos for full rebuttal
The comparator (to nicotine) is not NOTHING but SMOKING
Nicotine benefits:
- Lowers BMI
- May prevent Parkinsons
- May prevent ulcerative colitis
- May prevent some types of dementia
Alternative nicotine-delivery systems: not as "quit smoking aids", but their potential as long-term alternatives to tobacco that makes the virtual elimination of tobacco a realistic target.
Russell, BJ of Addiction, 1991
Russell was not hopeful about support from tobacco control activists:
- Most activists oppose safer nicotine delivery products
- Amazingly, there is also strong opposition from public-health bodies
Response of tobacco control activists, instead, was:
(hilarious delivery of their switching from one tack to another, as their claims are busted one by one)
Nicotine dangerous - no it isn't
Other EC ingredients dangerous - no they're not
Luring children - no they're not
Rehabilitating tobacco companies - no it isn't
Pharma is alarmed (losing markets)
"level playing field" - this soundbite is a sign of pharma influence
EC's primary purpose is to compete with CIGS, not with pharma products
Zealots want to eradicate nicotine completely. Drug use is evil, nicotine is evil.
This is madness.
Activists feel EC threaten their achievements
They feel their main purpose is to fight tobacco industry, not prevent death and disease
Or they may be aware of EC's promise, but want to sacrifice it for the sake of denying tobacco industry a "seat at the table"
Quote: BMJ articles last year
First Etter argued that ECs should be at least as easily available as cigarettes
Then Chapman argued that no, cigarettes should be more available.
Chapman:
"The needs of smokers must not become the tail that wags the dog of tobacco control policy" (laughs)
It's a moral agenda.
Public health issues often driven by this. Abortion, assisted dyying, sexual behaviour.
Moral beliefs are emotional and unshakeable; evidence is not needed to discover the truth as the truth is "self-evident".
You can cheat because the end justifies the means, because you're saving souls.
They do need evidence: only to create converts
Evidence may emerge of health risks, youth uptake in the future.
BUT the problems presented so far to justify regulatory restrictions were just made up - we have no evidence of these problems so far.
Safer products tend to replace the unsafe products rather than popularising them.
Are you saying that if we allow ECs on the market, it'll somehow increase the the use of conventional cigarettes? That's the only thing that matters.
All the other soundbites are irrelevant:
Re-normalising smoking: what does that mean? If it doesn't mean cigarette us goes up, then it's not renormalising smoking.
Undermining tobacco control: has no meaning unless cigarette use goes up
Rehabilitating tobacco industry: only of concern if cigarette use goes up.
No.1 question for research is: what does increased use of ECs do to cigarette consumption?
Risks and benefits of liberal vs restrictive regulation (ref Clive Bates' more thorough coverage of this that morning):
Over-regulation: ban, medicinal regulation, stricter regs than cigarettes: you will pre-empt any potential benefits and retain the market monopoloy of
cigarettes.
We are still trying to change the EC regulation. Which way will it go?
(slide: football team celebrating a goal, or disappointed baby face)
